Rick Santorum is a committed consistent conservative who has the best chance of winning the general election.  Santorum is a low-risk high-reward candidate who would lead a united party because he is a consistent, committed conservative. No one posts “anyone but Santorum”; we’ve seen any number of posters claiming they’ll stay home, vote 3rd party, or vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee.  Rick Santorum has always been Pro-Life and for traditional family values – he walks the conservative walk, and if you vote for Rick Santorum you know what you are getting.

.
Rick Santorum had a 96% rating from the American Conservative Union for 2006, and a lifetime rating of 88%. He has been consistently pro-life and supported a strong national defense, and he has stayed married to his wife, living out the family values that he supports.

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2006/2006senate.htm

Santorum has won statewide elections in the key swing-state of Pennsylvania twice. Before that he won Congressional elections in a district that tilted Democratic. Winning the Keystone state, Pennsylvania, blocks Obama’s second term and Rick Santorum is the candidate to do it.

.
The Democrats have one basic attack strategy against Santorum – Rick Santorum is “against a woman’s right to choose”. And given Obama’s extreme pro-abortion position in favor of denying medical care to infants who survive abortions, Obama can easily alienate swing voters by using this attack.  Santorum is the candidate best able to exploit Obama’s vulnerabilities by driving a stake into the heart of the Democrat coalition.  Obama made a choice to throw union guys and jobs under the bus by killing the Keystone pipeline and pandering to environmental extremists.  Rick Santorum has successfully gotten votes from workers in the past and he is the candidate best positioned to lead disgruntled workers away from Obama.  Rick Santorum does not have “baggage”, while both Romney and Gingrich would present the Democrats with a target-rich environment.

.
Rick Santorum is also the perfect unity candidate, being somewhat between Romney and Gingrich.  He is not a “vulture capitalist” and he doesn’t going around calling other people vulture capitalists either.  He is more exciting, and a better debater than Romney, while not being as antagonistic as Gingrich sometimes is.  He is not antagonistic toward the “Republican Establishment” but he is working to pull toward the right using honey rather than vinegar.  Rick Santorum can fire-up the Republican base without firing up the Democratic base the way Gingrich would – and Rick can attract some of the union guys that normally comprise some of the Democratic base.

.
In terms of criticizing Obama, Rick Santorum will be able to denounce Obamacare much more effectively than Mitt will. Rick is warming up for the general election now by pointing out flaws common to both Romneycare and Obamacare.
People know where Rick Santorum stands – it’s easier to respect a person who stands for something and defends his position than it is someone who you just don’t know what they stand for.

.
Rick Santorum is the candidate most likely to actually repeal Obamacare.  You’ve got to wonder if the author of Romneycare really has his heart set on repealing Obamacare.  Either Santorum or Gingrich will repeal Obamacare with a strongly Republican Congress.  However, if repeal is not a slam-dunk in Congress, Santorum’s persuasive approach is more likely to carry the day than Gingrich’s confrontational style.  Overall, policy-wise Santorum and Gingrich are both more conservative than Romney and are about as conservative as each other.  Where honey rather than vinegar is needed to advance the conservative agenda, Santorum will move America right while Gingrich will be limited by Congress.

I have evaluated the candidates in five areas to see how they stack up based on objective criteria.
1.  Will the candidate defend America and prevent Iran from building atom bombs?
Michelle Bachman – Yes
Rick Perry – Yes
Rick Santorum – Yes, he has strongly supported GWOT
Jon Huntsman – Yes
Newt Gingrich – Yes
Mitt Romney – Yes
Ron Paul – No – FAIL!
2.  Does the candidate uphold good moral/family values in his/her own life?
Michelle Bachman – Yes
Rick Perry – Yes
Rick Santorum – Yes
Jon Huntsman – Yes
Mitt Romney – Yes
Newt Gingrich – NO
3. Does the candidate have executive experience?
Michelle Bachman – No
Rick Perry – Yes
Rick Santorum – No
Jon Huntsman – Yes
Mitt Romney – Yes
Newt Gingrich – No
4. Has the candidate ever won a state-wide election?
Michelle Bachman – No
Rick Perry – Yes, over five times!
Rick Santorum – Yes, twice in the key purple state of Pennsylvania
Jon Huntsman – Yes, twice
Mitt Romney – Yes, once
Newt Gingrich – No
5.  Is the candidate a veteran; if not, did they avoid the draft or were they too young for the draft?
Michelle Bachman – No, too young for draft – also not subject to it
Rick Perry – Yes
Rick Santorum – No, too young
Jon Huntsman – No, too young
Mitt Romney – No, avoided the draft
Newt Gingrich – No, avoided the draft
My conclusions:  I began this exercise as a Santorum supporter, and he is still my first choice.  However, as I researched the candidates I was surprised at just how accomplished both Governors Perry and Huntsman are.  Rick Perry is just a hair behind Rick Santorum on my list, now. Governor Huntsman is my third choice, and Michelle Bachman is my fourth choice.   I do not live in Iowa, so before I cast my vote I will see how these candidates have performed in the early states and vote for the one in my top four who is most likely to win at that point. With four very talented people who are good debaters, I’m not sure why we would choose either Romney or Gingrich.  However, I would rather win with Romney than lose with Gingrich.  If it is a two-man race between Romney and Gingrich, I vote for Romney.
.

To win against anyone but Gingrich, Obama must show that his failed policies are better for America than the conservative solutions offered by his Republican opponent.  Against Gingrich, Obama, or his lackeys, have the option of going all-out negative on character and Palinizing Gingrich.  Since Gingrich was already Palininized before Palin was even a mayor, this will be a very easy strategy for the left.  Gingrich might well still win, but why take a chance on him when we have four other candidates with fine records who are good debaters.

The American people should be able to vote DIRECTLY on election day November 2010 on whether health-care reform legislation becomes permanent law.

The most important amendment that could be attached to health-care reform legislation in Congress is an amendment that would sunset all health-care reform legislation provisions and changes on December 31, 2010 unless a majority of the voters in November 2010 voted in favor of making the Health-Care Reform legislation changes permanent.  Who could be against such an amendment?  Shouldn’t the people have a direct say in such a far-reaching change to America?

If such an amendment is added to the final health-care reform legislation, it gives opponents one last chance to stop it, if health-care reform legislation passes both houses of Congress and is signed by President Obama.  Rasmussen reports that a majority of Americans are opposed to changing health care: 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Such an amendment would have several other benefits.  It could be an issue in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  Any congressman who voted against such an amendment could be criticized in the next election for refusing to let the PEOPLE decide the future of health care.  If President Obama does not pledge to veto any health-care reform legislation that will not be voted on by the PEOPLE directly, he can also be criticized in 2012 for refusing to let the PEOPLE decide the future of health care. 

If health-care reform legislation is on the ballot in the 2010 election, it will increase turn-out of conservative people who want to stop healthcare rationing.  This turn-out will help to elect conservative candidates.

Such an amendment would stiffen the spines of Republicans.  Any Republican who was considering voting for any sort of health-care reform legislation could make it clear that they will vote against any legislation that is not conditional upon a favorable vote by the PEOPLE in November 2010.  

If the leftists strong-arm health-care legislation through Congress that does not allow for a direct vote by the PEOPLE it will be easier to repeal.  It can be pointed out that this legislation was done to spite the will of the PEOPLE.  It will also justify using extraordinary methods to repeal such legislation. 

Sarah Palin has a lot of visibility and she is an effective speaker for conservative and traditional patriotic American values.  So, everyone who claims to be a conservative and/or a Republican should defend Sarah Palin.  And the major part of that defense should be to compare Sarah Palin with Barack Obama.  Sarah Palin is the conservative Republican in the public eye – our “rock star” taking on the leftist’s “rock star”.  On every issue where she is criticized, her superiority to Barack Obama should be emphasized.  Here are some examples:

Leftist: “Sarah Palin is a quitter”. Answer:  When Barack Obama ran for president he continued to collect his Senate salary though he was not actually working full time as a Senator.  At least if Sarah Palin chooses to run for president, she won’t be collecting the governor’s salary while she does it.  Sarah Palin has more integrity and is a better steward of the taxpayer’s money than Barack Obama.

Leftist:  “Sarah Palin isn’t smart enough to be president; she didn’t go to an Ivy League College.”  Answer: Abraham Lincoln didn’t go to an Ivy League College either.  Interesting that Barack Obama is a Harvard grad, but neither he nor his Harvard professor friend, Gates, know enough to just politely cooperate with the police.  Harvard grad Obama calls the police stupid.

Leftist:  “Sarah Palin has no foreign affairs experience.”  Answer: She negotiated the pipeline deal with Canadian officials.  Sarah Palin comes to negotiations with a core understanding of America’s greatness.  She knows Alaska history, and she knows the cost America paid for appeasement and military unpreparedness.  Barack Obama keeps apologizing to dictators instead of making them respect, and if necessary, fear America.

Leftist: – “Sarah Palin doesn’t know anything about the economy.”  Answer: The Palins have actually run a small business, made payroll, and created jobs.  What has Barack Obama actually done about the economy? besides having unemployment go up and getting criticized by the president of RUSSIA for being too socialistic?  Barack Obama has no experience in the private sector, and most job expansion must occur in the private sector.

Leftist: – “Sarah Palin opposes a woman’s right to choose.”  Answer: Sarah Palin is not in favor of a federal law banning abortion and did not push for an Alaska law banning abortion when she was governor.  Based on her actions so far, she could actually say, “I would never get an abortion myself, but I wouldn’t institute a nationwide legal ban on other women getting them.”  By the way, what about Sarah Palin’s right to choose?  If she chooses to give birth, shouldn’t everyone respect HER CHOICE?  Oh, and while we may not agree on precisely when life begins, can’t we agree that life has certainly begun by the time the baby is born?  And doesn’t that make Barack Obama’s opposition to providing medical care to infants born alive a horribly wrong policy?

You can think up other defenses of Palin; she’s sure better than Obama.  Deflect all criticism of Palin onto Obama.

Palin doesn’t need to be perfect; she just needs to be better than Obama.  Palin, Sessions, Romney, and Huckabee are all basically the same.  They’re all Americans and proud of it.  None of them went to a church for 20 years where the pastor cursed America.  None of them launched their political careers from a terrorist’s house.  We’ve got a couple years to decide who should be the Republican nominee – but for now we should all defend the lady who speaks up defending America, regular Americans, and conservatism.

I’m voting for McCain even though I expect Obama will carry Illinois by more than a few votes. I want McCain to win the popular vote as well as the electoral vote.

John Pitney, in NRO, discusses the possibility that McCain wins the electoral college, but loses the popular vote, and Obama persuades some electors in states carried by McCain to vote Obama so that Obama becomes the next president even though McCain would have won the electoral college vote in the normal winner-take-all scenario with faithfull electors.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhjMzVjYTZiYzdlNzE1NGZmY2E2MjgxMWI5YWJiMzY=

Also, I’ve read about the possibility of a 269-269 electoral vote tie. In that case the winner of the popular vote would have a strong claim on the presidency.

Finally, maybe these polls are REALLY screwed up. If I can make McCain carry Illinois by one vote, I want to do it.

Make YOUR VOTE count. FOR MCCAIN-PALIN!!!!

Senator Biden said, “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

An international crisis is not necessarily an event like the Cuban Missile Crisis that gets resolved peacefully. Thousands of people can die in an international crisis. These are very dangerous times, in some ways far more dangerous than the environment that Kennedy and Carter faced. The principal adversary both these presidents faced was the Soviet Union; the Soviet leaders certainly tested both Kennedy and Carter, but these tests did not involve an attack on America itself, nor a nuclear attack on any of America’s allies. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were rational and somewhat cautious men.

We cannot expect the same restraint from Ahmadinejad. If Iran builds atomic weapons, it is reasonable to expect that Ahmadinejad would use them against Israel and possibly the United States. Given Obama’s friendship with Pastor Wright and Rashid Khalidi, both outspoken opponents of “Zionism”, Iran might feel that the United States would not retaliate if it nuked Tel Aviv. Thus, election of Obama could lead to a disastrous Middle East war – millions of deaths, and a world-wide oil shortage, short term. Long term, failure by the US to retaliate for a nuclear attack on Israel would encourage attacks on other allies, and even the American homeland.

If McCain is president, Iran will know that an attack on Israel will mean certain massive US retaliation, and this would give the Iranians a strong incentive not to be warmongers. McCain did not submit for five years while he was in a position of weakness as a prisoner and being tortured. McCain, as Commander in Chief, and in a position of strength, will be bullied by no one, certainly not Ahmadinejad. McCain has also stated that for Iran to develop atomic weapons is unacceptable. Nobody believes that Obama would take strong action to stop Iran from building atomic bombs, so the election of Obama almost guarantees that some time during his presidency Iran will get, and possibly use, atomic weapons. With McCain, Iran faces a determined and resolute obstacle to any aggression, any time, any where.